Kilt Go Braugh? A cultural/historical question

[Archangel]

Interesting...which critics? All of the reviews of Fischer tend to be very positive.

One thing, though: Fischer really doesn't address the Ozarks per se, since the settlement of the Ozarks came after the 1820's. Of course, the Ulster-Scots/Scots-Irish who settled Appalachia were the majority of settlers into the Ozarks, but as I remember (I'm in St. Louis and away from my library at the moment), he only mentions the Ozarks in passing.

Still, it's a good resource.

T.

You're asking me to dig through my papers from a fourth year honours history course from about ten years ago. By critics, I mean peer reviews, not necessarily antagonists. He put together a great work but it is prone to generalizations. There was something else about stats but I can't remember fully what it was. Something to do with the Fens, I think. It's no reflection on his academic integrity, just another way of looking at the same info. The book is right here as a ready reference, the photocopies of the journals are in a box.
(Actually, you just alerted me to a potential problem, I just checked my drive for my old papers and they're not on this drive. Now I have to check out my older drives to make sure I don't lose them forever.)

Never mind ready reference, I couldn't remember the mountain range that they settled in according to Fischer. I was asking in that sentence but I guess it wasn't clear enough. Appalachians are what I was trying to remember. Thank you for supplying that, and sorry if it sounded misleading.

[Archangel]

So I'm having another look at Albion's Seed. Fischer is mainly looking at the movement from 1717-1775. He'll actually cover a broader timespan than that.
His group is quite broad. While he says he means the borders (either side of the Tweed River), he includes all the highlands and Northern Ireland. He notes that they settle all over European North America but his focus is on Appalachian culture.
He poses that the violent history of those people leads to the culture of the back-country ways. He identifies many cultural memories that seem to come from the Scottish Borders.
Again they're broad statements and simplistic. English culture was so peaceful in the same time period, wasn't it? England, becoming Britain, had a dramatic change in philosophy between 1745 and 1760 that surprised the colonies. However, prior to 1760, there wasn't a significant difference in violence. But I digress...

For the sake of this discussion, Fischer does point out that Scotch-Irish is an Americanism. People back then identified themselves as "Scotch" or linked to England rather than either Scotland or Ireland. The Irish at that time were going through severe discrimination in many places that Scots and, of course, English did not have to put up with. Then there's the other group, the Highlanders, for Scotch-Irish refers more to the Lowlands.
Somehow, Fischer keeps them all as one group. Even though he pulls from a large population base over a long time period, then focuses on a shorter period of time and a narrower settlement area, this is still a valuable reference book. Nobody, up to that time, had undertaken such a sweeping project.

[gilmore]

So I'm having another look at Albion's Seed. Fischer is mainly looking at the movement from 1717-1775. He'll actually cover a broader timespan than that.
His group is quite broad. While he says he means the borders (either side of the Tweed River), he includes all the highlands and Northern Ireland. He notes that they settle all over European North America but his focus is on Appalachian culture.
He poses that the violent history of those people leads to the culture of the back-country ways. ...Again they're broad statements and simplistic. ....

I read "Albion's Seed" a few years ago and came away with that impression as well. It reminded me of nothing so much as the stereotypes of the regional history books by the WPA writers of the 1930's, but with modern/post-modern analysis/prejudices concerning mores of 250 years ago thrown in from time to time, such as his almost obsessive concern with William Byrd's "womanizing," as he puts it.

I am surprised that this work is thought of as solid history. But then academic historical writing these days seems to be more about how creative the author can be with his conclusions than about presentation of what we used to call facts.

[Archangel]

To be fair to Fischer, I should describe the book. It's a thick book, full of data. It describes what he calls the four major migrations from Britain to North America: East Anglia to Mass.;South of England to Virginia; North Midlands to Delaware; Borderlands to the Backcountry.

He has tons of data linking many cultural areas. However, he is purposing to do a cultural history. This leads to the great debate between anecdotalists and empiricists. It is this effort that is his major contribution to the study of history. He is trying to give a historical value to the story handed down from your great-great granparents (on another thread, there is somebody wearing his ?-grandfather's uniform and building a new history with a sword). Historians have to be able to work that out and they haven't really done it.

The other three areas are better done. Fischer describes smaller areas in Britain that move to specific areas in the New World in tighter time frames. The area that we are all interested in is his weakest, in the empirical sense, for the reasons discussed earlier.

It is still very good reading and recommended to those who would like to know more about the Scots and the Irish in the time frame discussed. It is probably one of the easiest to read histories that cover this subject. It is more anecdotal and general but that's what he is trying to do.

[macwilkin]

To be fair to Fischer, I should describe the book. It's a thick book, full of data. It describes what he calls the four major migrations from Britain to North America: East Anglia to Mass.;South of England to Virginia; North Midlands to Delaware; Borderlands to the Backcountry.

He has tons of data linking many cultural areas. However, he is purposing to do a cultural history. This leads to the great debate between anecdotalists and empiricists. It is this effort that is his major contribution to the study of history. He is trying to give a historical value to the story handed down from your great-great granparents (on another thread, there is somebody wearing his ?-grandfather's uniform and building a new history with a sword). Historians have to be able to work that out and they haven't really done it.

The other three areas are better done. Fischer describes smaller areas in Britain that move to specific areas in the New World in tighter time frames. The area that we are all interested in is his weakest, in the empirical sense, for the reasons discussed earlier.

It is still very good reading and recommended to those who would like to know more about the Scots and the Irish in the time frame discussed. It is probably one of the easiest to read histories that cover this subject. It is more anecdotal and general but that's what he is trying to do.

That's all right; believe me, I understand about trying to locate old papers!

T.

[wscottmac]

Let's face it, bagpipes are awesome, and why stop the skirl of the pipes on such a wonderful (largely secular) holiday?!?

Well said!

[Warhoover]

St. Patrick’s Day is not an excuse to get snot-slinging, commode-hugging drunk, and I really don’t care for the fluorescent green Afro wigs, light-up shamrock deely-bobbers, mardi-gras beads and green beer that's come to be associated with St. Patrick's Day in the United States.

This has been a sore subject with me as well PioBear! I just don't get why this happens. I expect its mostly people that are truely ignorant to the meaning. It's a shame really. Unfortunately I have seen many that are now using St Andrew's Day as an excuse to do the same.
I have really enjoyed the historical information put forth in this thread. The histories of Scotland, Ireland and Britain have always been an interest to me. There is alot of it to wade through and its hard sometimes to keep alot of it straight, especially when it comes to lineage of rulers.

[Edward Teach]

Originally Posted by PiobBear
St. Patrick’s Day is not an excuse to get snot-slinging, commode-hugging drunk, and I really don’t care for the fluorescent green Afro wigs, light-up shamrock deely-bobbers, mardi-gras beads and green beer that's come to be associated with St. Patrick's Day in the United States.

This has been a sore subject with me as well PioBear! I just don't get why this happens. I expect its mostly people that are truely ignorant to the meaning. It's a shame really. Unfortunately I have seen many that are now using St Andrew's Day as an excuse to do the same.
I have really enjoyed the historical information put forth in this thread. The histories of Scotland, Ireland and Britain have always been an interest to me. There is alot of it to wade through and its hard sometimes to keep alot of it straight, especially when it comes to lineage of rulers.

Agreed. Besides it's a waste of good booze if all you end up doing is puking it back up again.

[Archangel]

Agreed. Besides it's a waste of good booze if all you end up doing is puking it back up again.

Umm, I think you've missed the point. I think they were complaining about other people's drinking (not Irn Bru).

[beowulf67]

Another way to state this may be, "What thoughts do you personally have when you don your kilt on March 17th?"

Same as always.."D@*N, I look good!"